Supreme Court of India
BIJENDER SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 549
- Decided
- 23 April 2025
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ABHAY S OKA
Holding
A disability that is not recorded at the time of entry into service is presumed to be attributable to military service, and the burden of disproving this lies on the employer; therefore, the appellant is entitled to a 50% disability pension despite the disability being assessed below 20%.
Summary
Bijender Singh, an ex‑army officer, was invalided out in 1989 for generalized tonic‑clonic seizures assessed at less than 20% disability. The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) dismissed his petition for the disability element of pension, holding that because his disability was below 20% he was not entitled to it, and also dismissed his review application. The Supreme Court examined the applicable pension regulations, entitlement rules and statutory provisions, emphasizing the presumption that a serviceman is sound at entry and any later disability is attributable to service unless the employer proves otherwise. It held that the Tribunal failed to consider whether the disability was attributable to or aggravated by military service and ignored the legal presumption favoring the claimant. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal’s orders and directed that the appellant be granted a 50% disability pension with arrears from 1 January 1996, with interest, thereby allowing the appeals.
Issues considered
- The correct interpretation of Regulation 173 and Rule 5/14 of the Entitlement Rules regarding attribution of disability to military service.
- Whether a disability assessed at less than 20% can attract the disability element of pension post‑1996.
- The burden of proof on the employer to disprove attribution of disability to service.
- The applicability of the 31 January 2001 instructions and the 20 July 2006 letter in determining pension entitlement.
Legislation cited
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of order passed by the tribunal dismissing the review application and holding that disability of the appellant was less than 20%. Headnotes† Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – ss.14, 30 – Pension Regulations for the Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 – rr.5 – Disability pension – Appellant, enrolled in the army, as invalided out from service on account of low medical category for the disease generalized tonic clonic seizure old 345 V-67 assessed at less than 20% on the recommendations of
Subjects
Invalided from serviceGeneralized tonic clonic seizure old 345 V-67Invaliding Medical BoardPosting at high altitude glacierDisability pensionService elementDisability not attributable to or aggravated by military serviceRe‑Survey Medical BoardsDisability elementArmy Group InsuranceLegal presumption that disease arose during serviceOnus of proof on employerDisability pension to armed forces personnelReview applicationDisabilityLow medical categoryMilitary serviceDisability element of the disability pensionPresumption
Judgment
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1550 : 2025 INSC 549
Bijender Singh
v.
Union of India & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 4458-4459 of 2024)
23 April 2025
[Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the correctness of order passed by the tribunal
dismissing the review application and holding that disability of the
appellant was less than 20%.
Headnotes†
Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – ss.14, 30 – Pension
Regulations for the Army, 1961 – Regs 173, 183 – Entitlement
Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 – rr.5 – Disability
pension – Appellant, enrolled in the army, as invalided out
from service on account of low medical category for the
disease generalized tonic clonic seizure old 345 V-67 assessed
at less than 20% on the recommendations of the Invaliding
Medical Board – Case of the appellant that he was hale and
hearty when he had joined the army but suffered the disability
during his posting at high altitude glacier – Appellant was
granted disability pension consisting of the service element
only since the disability was assessed at less than 20% and
held as not attributable to or aggravated by military service –
Challenge to – Tribunal held that disability of the appellant
was less than 20% – Review application thereagainst also
dismissed – Correctness:
Held: Tribunal simply went by the remarks of the Invaliding
Medical Board and Re-Survey Medical Boards to hold that since
the disability of the appellant was less than 20%, he would not
be entitled to the disability element of the disability pension –
Tribunal did not examine the issue as to whether the disability
was attributable to or aggravated by military service – Neither has
it been mentioned by the Invaliding Medical Board nor by the Re-
Survey Medical Boards that the disease for which the appellant
* Author
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1551
Bijender Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
was invalided out of service could not be detected at the time of
entry into military service – Invaliding Medical Board was quite
categorical that no disability of the appellant existed before entering
service – If there is no note or report of the Medical Board at the
time of entry into service that member suffered from any particular
disease, the presumption would be that the member got afflicted
by the said disease because of military service – Thus, the burden
of proving that the disease is not attributable to or aggravated
by military service rests entirely on the employer – Any disease
or disability for which a member of the armed forces is invalided
out of service would have to be assumed to be above 20% and
attract grant of 50% disability pension – Impugned orders of the
tribunal wholly unsustainable in law and set aside – Respondents
to grant the disability element of disability pension to the appellant
at the rate of 50% with effect from 01.01.1996 onwards for life.
[Paras 46, 47]
Case Law Cited
Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India [2013] 8 SCR 1119 : (2013) 7
SCC 316; Union of India v. Rajbir Singh [2015] 2 SCR 183 : (2015)
12 SCC 264; Union of India v. Angad Singh Titaria [2015] 2 SCR
524 : (2015) 12 SCC 257; K.J.S. Buttar v. Union of India [2011]
4 SCR 136 : (2011) 11 SCC 429; Sukhvinder Singh v. Union of
India [2014] 8 SCR 1 : (2014) 14 SCC 364 – referred to.
List of Acts
Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007; Armed Forces Tribunal
(Procedure) Rules, 2008; Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961;
Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982.
List of Keywords
Invalided from service; Generalized tonic clonic seizure old 345
V-67; Invaliding Medical Board; Posting at high altitude glacier;
Disability pension; Service element; Disability not attributable to
or aggravated by military service; Re-Survey Medical Boards;
Disability element; Army Group Insurance; Legal presumption that
disease arose during service; Onus of proof on employer; Disability
pension to armed forces personnel; Review application; Disability;
Low medical category; Military service; Disability element of the
disability pension; Presumption.
1552 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 4458-4459
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2016 and 22.01.2018
of the Armed Forces Tribunal in OA No. 3977 of 2013 and RA No.
20 of 2016, respectively
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Himanshu Gupta, Manoj C. Mishra.
Advs. for the Respondents:
R. Bala, Sr. Adv., Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav, Dy. Gov., Shibashish
Mishra, Ayush Puri, Ts Sabarish, Aniruddh Sarma Ii, Rukhmini
Bobde, Akshit Pradhan, Dr. N. Visakamurthy.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Subject matter of both the civil appeals is the same. Therefore, both
the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment and
order. However, for the sake of convenience, we refer to the facts
mentioned in Civil Appeal No. 4458 of 2024.
2.1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal
Act, 2007 against the order dated 22.01.2018 passed by the
Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh Regional Bench in R.A. No.
20 of 2016 in O.A. No. 3977 of 2013 as well as the order dated
26.02.2016 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh
Regional Bench in O.A. No. 3977 of 2013.
3. Be it stated that appellant as the applicant had filed O.A. No. 3977
of 2013 before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh Regional
Bench (‘Tribunal’ for short) under Section 14 of the Armed Forces
Tribunal Act, 2007 (briefly ‘the 2007 Act’ hereinafter) contending
that he was entitled to the disability element of disability pension
on account of his disability attributable to military service, rounding
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1553
Bijender Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
off of his disability to 50%. By the order dated 26.02.2016, Tribunal
held that disability of the appellant was less than 20%. Therefore, no
relief could be granted to the appellant. Resultantly, O.A. No. 3977
of 2013 was dismissed.
4. Appellant filed a review application under Rule 18 of the Armed
Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2008 for review of the order
dated 26.02.2016. The same was registered as R.A. No. 20 of 2016.
By order dated 22.01.2018, Tribunal held that there was no ground
to review the order dated 26.02.2016 and, accordingly, dismissed
the review application. Request made by the appellant for grant of
leave to appeal was declined.
5. Aggrieved thereby, appellant has preferred the present civil appeal.
Notice in this case was issued on 13.08.2018. In the hearing held
on 19.03.2024, leave to appeal under Section 31(1) of the 2007 Act
was granted. Delay in filing the appeal was condoned.
6. Relevant facts may be briefly noted.
7. Appellant was enrolled in the army on 30.09.1985. He was invalided
out from service w.e.f. 14.08.1989 on account of low medical
category for the disease generalized tonic clonic seizure old 345
V-67 assessed at less than 20% on the recommendations of the
Invaliding Medical Board.
8. According to the appellant, he was hale and hearty when he had
joined the army. He had suffered the aforesaid disability during his
posting at high altitude Siachen glacier from May, 1988 to 20.09.1988.
Onset of the disability was from 09.10.1988.
9. Invaliding Medical Board in its proceedings dated 12.07.1989 opined
that the disability was not attributable to or aggravated by military
service; the disability was assessed for a period of two years.
10. In view of the opinion of the Invaliding Medical Board, appellant was
invalided out from service w.e.f. 14.08.1989. He was granted disability
pension consisting of the service element only since the disability
was assessed at less than 20% and held as not attributable to or
aggravated by military service.
11. Re-Survey Medical Boards were held on 07.08.1993, 23.06.1998 and
28.06.2002. On all the three occasions, Re-Survey Medical Boards
had assessed the disability of the appellant at around 15 to 19%
further observing that such disability was for life.
1554 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
12. Appellant had submitted representations dated 07.08.2010 and
05.02.2013 before respondent No. 3 requesting the authorities to
accept his disability as attributable to and aggravated by military
service and thereafter to release disability pension (disability element)
to him by assessing the disability at 50% w.e.f. 01.01.1996. However,
there was no response.
13. At that stage, appellant approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.
2322 of 2013. By order dated 13.05.2013, Tribunal disposed of O.A.
No. 2322 of 2013 directing the respondents to take a decision on
the aforesaid representations by passing a speaking order within
four months.
14. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Tribunal dated 13.05.2013,
respondents passed an order dated 30.07.2013 rejecting the claim
of the appellant for disability pension.
15. Aggrieved thereby, appellant approached the Tribunal again by filing
O.A. No. 3977 of 2013 seeking the following reliefs:
(i) to quash the order dated 30.07.2013;
(ii) to quash the recommendation of the Invaliding Medical
Board to the extent that disability suffered by the appellant
was not considered as attributable to and aggravated by
military service;
(iii) to direct the respondents to release the disability
element of disability pension at the rate of 50% w.e.f.
01.01.1996 for life with 18% interest;
iv) to direct the respondents to pay the arrears of disability
element of disability pension w.e.f. 01.01.1996 till full and
actual payment.
16. Respondents filed written statement opposing the claim of the
appellant. Contention of the respondents was that disability of the
appellant was found less than 20% by the Invaliding Medical Board
as well as by the Re-Survey Medical Boards. Therefore, the appellant
was not entitled to the grant of disability element of disability pension.
As the disability of the appellant, in any case, was less than 20%
and was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service,
he was not entitled to such relief.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1555
Bijender Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
17. Tribunal vide the impugned order dated 26.02.2016 held that disability
of the appellant was less than 20%. The Invaliding Medical Board as
well as Re-Survey Medical Boards had observed that the disability of
the appellant was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military
service. Therefore, no relief could be granted to the appellant.
Consequently, O.A. No. 3977 of 2013 was dismissed.
18. Appellant filed R.A. No. 20 of 2016 for review of the impugned order
dated 26.02.2016. It was contended that Tribunal had not taken
into consideration the judgments relied upon by the appellant. That
apart, another Bench of the Tribunal in which one of the members
common to the Bench which had passed the order dated 26.02.2016
had decided a similar matter by allowing disability pension of the
applicant in O.A. No. 908 of 2011 (Mahal Singh Vs. Union of India)
vide the order dated 19.12.2014. It was argued that there being an
error apparent on the face of the record, the order dated 26.02.2016
should be reviewed. On the other hand, respondents argued that
the impugned order was a well considered one and there was no
error apparent on the face of the record which would justify review.
18.1. By the order dated 22.01.2018, the Tribunal dismissed the
review application by holding that the impugned order was a
well-considered one and that there was no error apparent on
the face of the record to justify a review. Tribunal also declined
the oral request of the appellant for grant of leave to appeal.
19. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the orders of the
Tribunal dated 26.02.2016 and 22.01.2018 are wholly unsustainable
in law. In so far the review is concerned, Tribunal simply held that
there was no error apparent on the face of the record and, thereafter,
dismissed the review application. He submits that another Bench
of the Tribunal in which one of the members was common had
allowed O.A. No. 908 of 2011 (Mahal Singh Vs. Union of India) on
19.12.2014 by granting disability pension to the applicant therein
who was similarly placed like the appellant.
19.1. In so far the impugned order dated 26.02.2016 is concerned,
the same is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in
Dharamvir Singh Vs. Union of India,1 Union of India Vs. Rajbir
1 (2013) 7 SCC 316
1556 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Singh2 and Union of India Vs. Angad Singh Titaria.3 By ignoring
the binding precedents of this Court, Tribunal had declined
the prayer of the appellant to grant the disability element of
disability pension to him.
19.2. Learned counsel submits that the disease or disability which
led to an individual’s discharge will ordinarily be deemed to
have arisen in service if no note of it was made at the time of
his entry into military service. Medical opinion must disclose
cogent reasons as to why the disease or disability is not
attributable to military service though he is invalided out from
service on account of such disease or disability. In the case of
the appellant, there is no note that the disease of generalized
tonic clonic seizure old 345 V-67 could not be detected at the
time of entry into service though on account of such disease,
appellant was invalided out of military service in low medical
category.
19.3. Learned counsel has also argued that in the present case,
Tribunal did not even consider as to whether the disease
suffered by the appellant is attributable to or aggravated by
military service. This, he submits, itself is an error apparent
on the face of the record. Instead, the entire focus of the
Tribunal was on the issue as to whether the disability was at
20% or above. Since the Tribunal held that the disability was
less than 20%, it did not consider the core issue as to whether
such disease or disability is attributable to or aggravated by
military service.
19.4. Learned counsel also submits that Tribunal had overlooked
the instructions dated 31.01.2001 which provided for rounding
off of disability less than 50% (i.e. 1% to 49%) to 50%. The
condition of minimum 20% disability required for earning the
disability element of disability pension was abrogated w.e.f.
01.01.1996. The artificial cut-off date i.e. 01.01.1996 has
already been set aside by this Court in K.J.S. Buttar Vs. Union
of India.4 Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that since the
2 (2015) 12 SCC 264
3 (2015) 12 SCC 257
4 (2011) 11 SCC 429
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1557
Bijender Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
disability of the appellant was less than 20%, no relief could
be granted to him is clearly unsustainable in law.
19.5. Learned counsel submits that Tribunal also failed to appreciate
the letter dated 20.07.2006 of the Ministry of Defence,
Government of India clarifying that even if a person has been
invalided out from service and having 1% disability, he would
still be entitled for commuting the benefit of disability element
at the rate of 50%. Failure to consider the aforesaid letter has
vitiated the impugned order.
19.6. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that in any view of the
matter, both the impugned orders are liable to be set aside
and quashed. Consequently, respondents should be directed
to grant the disability element of disability pension to the
appellant with applicable interest w.e.f. 01.01.1996.
20. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that
case of the appellant was duly considered. Since his disability was
assessed at less than 20%, he could not be granted the disability
element of disability pension. Appellant was provided an opportunity to
prefer an appeal against the rejection of disability pension. Instead of
preferring an appeal before the appellate authority within the specified
period, appellant submitted a representation to the Government
of India, Ministry of Defence for grant of disability pension. After
considering the representation in the light of the relevant rules,
Government of India, Ministry of Defence rejected the same.
20.1. He further submits that the disease or the disability of the
appellant was assessed by the Medical Board as neither
attributable to nor aggravated by military service.
20.2. Finally, learned counsel submits that the appeal filed by the
appellant is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
21. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been
duly considered.
22. Let us first deal with the proceedings of the Invaliding Medical
Board dated 12.07.1989. The Medical Board carefully examined the
appellant who was being released/invalided out of service in low
medical category for generalized tonic clonic seizure (old) 345 V-67.
The Board opined that appellant was in good bodily health and
1558 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
had the prospect of an average duration of life. He was, therefore,
recommended for extended insurance cover by Army Group Insurance
after his release/invalidment. In part III of the proceedings which
is marked as confidential, the answer of the Medical Board to the
question as to whether the disability/disabilities of the appellant existed
before entering service was a clear no. Again, answer to the question
as to whether disability was attributable to the appellant’s negligence
or misconduct, was a categorical no. Percentage of disablement was
assessed at 15% for a probable duration of two years.
23. In the Re-Survey Medical Board proceedings dated 07.08.1993, the
aforesaid disability was assessed at less than 20% (15 to 19%) for
5 years.
24. The above view was reiterated in the Re-Survey Medical Board
proceedings held on 23.06.1998 where the disability was again
assessed between 15 to 19% for a period of 10 years.
25. Finally, in the Re-Survey Medical Board proceedings dated
28.06.2002, the disability was assessed at being static i.e. 15 to
19% with the further remark that duration of such disability would
be lifelong.
26. We may now deal with the relevant provisions of the Pension
Regulations for the Army, 1961 (briefly ‘the Regulations’ hereinafter).
27. Regulation 173 deals with the primary condition for the grant of
disability pension. Regulation 173 reads thus:
Primary conditions for the grant of disability Pension
173. Unless otherwise specifically provided a disability
pension consisting of service element and disability element
may be granted to an individual who is invalided out of
service on account of a disability which is attributable to
or aggravated by military service in non-battle casualty
and is assessed at 20 per cent or over.
The question whether a disability is attributable to or
aggravated by military service shall be determined under
the rule in Appendix II.
28. Regulation 183 of the Regulations says that the disability pension
consists of two elements viz service element and disability element.
Where an individual is invalided out of service before completion of
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1559
Bijender Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
his service period on account of disability which is attributable to or
aggravated by military service and is assessed below 20%, he will be
granted an award equal to the service element of disability pension
determined in the manner provided in Regulation 183. Regulation
183 stipulates as under:
Amount of disability pension
183. The disability pension consists of two elements viz.
service element and disability element, which shall be
assessed as under: -
(1) Service element
*** *** *** ***
(2) Disability element
*** *** *** ***
In case where an individual is invalidated out of service
before completion of his prescribed engagement/service limit
on account of disability which is attributable to or aggravated
by military service and is assessed below 20%, he will be
granted an award equal to service element of disability
pension determined in the manner given in Regulation 183
of the Pension Regulations for the Army Part I (1961)….
29. Thus, as would be evident from the above, the disability pension
consists of two elements i.e. service element and disability element
which is determined in the manner provided in Regulation 183.
As per Regulation 173, disability pension is to be granted to an
individual who is invalided out of service on account of a disability
which is attributable to or aggravated by military service and which
is assessed at 20% or over.
30. How the disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military
service has to be determined is provided in the Entitlement Rules for
Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 (briefly ‘the Rules’ hereinafter)
which is placed in Appendix II as referred to in Regulation 173.
31. Rule 4 of the Rules makes it clear that invaliding from service is a
necessary condition for grant of disability pension. An individual who
at the time of his release is in a lower medical category than that in
which he was recruited will be treated as invalidated from service.
1560 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
32. Rule 5 of the Rules reads as under:
5. The approach to the question of entitlement
to casualty pensionary awards and evaluation
of disabilities shall be based on the following
presumptions:
Prior to and During Service
(a) member is presumed to have been in sound
physical and mental condition upon entering service
except as to physical disabilities noted or recorded
at the time of entrance.
(b) In the event of his subsequently being discharged
from service on medical grounds any deterioration in
his health which has taken place is due to service.
32.1. Thus, what Rule 5 says is that the question of entitlement to
casualty pensionary awards and evaluation of disabilities shall
be based on the presumption that the concerned member was
in sound physical and mental condition while entering service
except as to physical disabilities noted or recorded at the time of
entrance. It is also to be presumed that in the event of him being
discharged from service on medical grounds, any deterioration
in his health which has taken place is due to service.
33. As per Rule 9, the onus of proof is on the authority and not on the
claimant. Rule 9 specifically says that a member who is declared
disabled from service shall not be required to prove his entitlement
to pension and such benefit is to be given more liberally. Rule 9 is
extracted hereunder:
Onus of Proof
9. The claimant shall not be called upon to prove the
conditions of entitlements. He/she will receive the benefit
of any reasonable doubt. This benefit will be given more
liberally to the claimants in field/afloat service cases.
34. Rule 14(b) is also relevant. It reads as follows:
Diseases
14. In respect of diseases, the following rule will be
observed:
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1561
Bijender Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
(a) *** *** *** ***
(b) A disease which has led to an individual’s
discharge or death will ordinarily be deemed to have
arisen in service, if no note of it was made at the
time of the individual’s acceptance for military service.
However, if medical opinion holds, for reasons to
be stated, that the disease could not have been
detected on medical examination prior to acceptance
for service, the disease will not be deemed to have
arisen during service.
(c) *** *** *** ***
34.1. Rule 14(b) provides for a legal presumption that a disease which
has led to an individual’s discharge or death will ordinarily be
deemed to have arisen in service if no note of it was made
at the time of the individual’s acceptance of military service.
However, if the medical opinion says that the disease could not
have been detected on medical examination before entering
military service, then such a disease would not be deemed
to have arisen during service provided reasons are recorded.
35. This Court in Dharamvir Singh (supra) examined the provisions of
Regulation 173 and, thereafter, held that disability pension is to be
granted to an individual who is invalided from service on account of
a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service
and is assessed at 20% or above. The question as to whether a
disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service has to
be determined under the Rules.
36. In Rajbir Singh (supra), this Court from a conjoint and harmonious
reading of Rules 5, 9 and 14 of the Rules culled out the following
guiding principles:
(i) a member is presumed to have been in sound physical
and mental condition upon entering service except as
to physical disabilities noted or recorded at the time of
entrance;
(ii) in the event of his being discharged from service on
medical grounds at any subsequent stage it must be
presumed that any such deterioration in his health which
1562 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
has taken place is due to such military service;
(iii) the disease which has led to an individual’s discharge
or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service,
if no note of it was made at the time of the individual’s
acceptance for military service; and
(iv) if medical opinion holds that the disease, because of
which the individual was discharged, could not have been
detected on medical examination prior to acceptance of
service, reasons for the same shall be stated.
37. Government of India, Ministry of Defence through the Director
(Pensions) issued instructions dated 31.01.2001 addressed to the
Chief of the Army Staff, Chief of the Naval Staff and Chief of the
Air Staff on the subject implementation of government decisions on
the recommendations of the fifth central pay commission regarding
disability pension/war injury pension/special family pension/
liberalized family pension/dependent pension/liberalized dependent
family pension for officers and personnel below the rank of officers
belonging to the armed forces retiring invaliding or dying in harness
on or after 01.01.1996. Para 2.1 mentioned that the provisions
mentioned therein shall apply to the armed forces personnel who
were in service on and from 01.01.1996. Part-II of the instructions
deals with pensionary benefits on death/disability in attributable/
aggravated cases. Para 4.1 says that for determining the pensionary
benefits for death or disability under different circumstances due to
attributable/ aggravated causes, the cases are broadly categorised
under five categories i.e. category A to category E. Category B deals
with cases of death or disability due to causes which are accepted
as attributable to or aggravated by military service as determined
by the competent medical authorities. Examples of disabilities or
diseases attributable to or aggravated by military service would be
diseases contracted because of continued exposure to a hostile work
environment, subject to extreme weather conditions or occupational
hazards.
38. Para 7.2 of the instructions dated 31.01.2001 says that where
an armed forces personnel is invalided out under circumstances
mentioned in para 4.1, the extent of disability or functional incapacity
shall be determined for the purposes of computing the disability
element in the following manner:
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1563
Bijender Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
Percentage of disability as Percentage to be reckoned for
assessed by Invaliding Medical computing of disability element
Board
Less than 50 50
Between 50 and 75 75
Between 76 and 100 100
39. Para 8.2 declares that for disabilities less than 100% but not less
than 20%, the above rates shall be proportionately reduced. However,
no disability element shall be payable for disability less than 20%. In
such a case, provisions contained in para 7.2 would not be applicable
for computing disability element.
40. There is a letter dated 20.07.2006 of the Adjutant General’s Branch,
Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence(Army) dealing
with revision of rules and procedures regarding grant of disability
pension/special family pension to armed forces personnel. A standard
operating procedure has been laid down by the aforesaid letter. Para
5 of the said letter mentions that if the resultant disability is held
as attributable to service by the competent authority and assessed
at 20% or more (01% or more in case of post January 01, 1996
invalidment cases) by the Invaliding Medical Board/Re-Survey Medical
Board, further action would be taken as per clauses (a) and (b). As
per clause (b), the disability element in cases of invalidment shall be
regulated in terms of para 7.2 of the instructions dated 31.01.2001.
Therefore, this letter removed the disability cap of 20% in respect
of invalidment due to disability attributable to military service cases
post 01.01.1996.
41. This takes us to the letter dated 19.01.2010 of the Department of
Ex-Servicemen Welfare, Ministry of Defence, Government of India
addressed to the Chiefs of all the three services. It is stated therein
that in order to consider various issues relating to pension of armed
forces pensioners, government had set up a committee headed by
the cabinet secretary. The committee had made recommendations
on disability/war injury pension which were considered by the
government. Upon such consideration, it was decided that with effect
from 01.07.2009, the concept of broad branding of percentage of
1564 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
disability/war injury as provided in para 7.2 of the instructions dated
31.01.2001 would be extended to officers and armed forces personnel
who were invalided out of service prior to 01.01.1996 and are in
receipt of disability/war injury pension as on 01.07.2009. However, it
was clarified that wherever the disability element/war injury element
of pension in pre 01.01.1996 cases were not allowed for disability
being accepted as less than 20% at the initial stage or subsequent
stage on reassessment of the disability, the same will continue to
be disallowed and such cases will not be reopened.
42. In K.J.S. Buttar (supra), this Court examined para 7.2 of the instructions
dated 31.01.2001 which provided amongst others that where the
disability was assessed between 50% and 75%, then the same should
be treated as 75% and it made no difference whether he was invalided
from service before or after 01.01.1996. Appellant in this case was
an ex-captain in the Indian army who was invalided out of service
because of a gunshot injury whereby he was found to be disabled
with degree of disability assessed at 50% and attributed to military
service. According to the appellant, his disability should have been
treated as 75% instead of 50% in terms of para 7.2 of the instructions
dated 31.01.2001. It made no difference whether he was invalided
from service before or after 01.01.1996. Therefore, this Court held
that the appellant in that case was entitled to the said benefits with
arrears from 01.01.1996 and interest at 8% per annum on the same.
42.1. Further, this Court after thorough examination of para 7.2 of the
instructions dated 31.01.2001 held that there will be violation
of Article 14 of the Constitution if those who had retired/were
invalided before 01.01.1996 are denied the same benefits as
given to those who retired after that date. Para 16 is relevant
and is extracted hereunder:
16. At any event, we have held that there will be
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution if those who
retired/were invalided before 01.01.1996 are denied
the same benefits as given to those who retired after
that date.
43. Dharamvir Singh (supra) is a case where this Court examined amongst
others the question as to whether a member of armed forces can
be presumed to have been in sound physical and mental condition
upon entering service in the absence of disability or disease noted
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1565
Bijender Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
or recorded at the time of entrance? That was a case where the
appellant who was a sepoy in the Indian army was boarded out of
service with effect from 01.04.1996 on the ground of 20% permanent
disability as he was found to be suffering from generalized seizure
(epilepsy). As per the Medical Board, the said disability was not
related to military service. As a result, he was denied disability
pension. His challenge to the same was accepted by the Single
Bench of the High Court. Single Bench was of the view that there
was nothing on record to show that the appellant was suffering from
any disease at the time of his initial recruitment in the Indian army.
Therefore, such disease would be deemed to be attributable to or
aggravated by military service. Therefore, in terms of Regulation 173
of the Regulations, he would be eligible for disability pension. Union
of India challenged the aforesaid decision of the Single Bench before
the Division Bench. Division Bench set aside the order of the learned
Single Judge whereafter the appellant approached this Court and in
the above context, the aforesaid question was framed. After referring
to relevant provisions of the Regulations and the Rules, this Court
summed up the principles in the following manner:
29. A conjoint reading of various provisions,
reproduced above, makes it clear that:
29.1. Disability pension to be granted to an individual
who is invalided from service on account of a disability
which is attributable to or aggravated by military
service in non-battle casualty and is assessed at
20% or over. The question whether a disability is
attributable to or aggravated by military service
to be determined under the Entitlement Rules for
Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 of Appendix II
(Regulation 173).
29.2. A member is to be presumed in sound physical
and mental condition upon entering service if there is
no note or record at the time of entrance. In the event
of his subsequently being discharged from service on
medical grounds any deterioration in his health is to be
presumed due to service [Rule 5 read with Rule 14(b)].
29.3. The onus of proof is not on the claimant
(employee), the corollary is that onus of proof that the
1566 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
condition for non-entitlement is with the employer. A
claimant has a right to derive benefit of any reasonable
doubt and is entitled for pensionary benefit more
liberally (Rule 9).
29.4. If a disease is accepted to have been as
having arisen in service, it must also be established
that the conditions of military service determined or
contributed to the onset of the disease and that the
conditions were due to the circumstances of duty in
military service [Rule 14(c)].
29.5. If no note of any disability or disease was made
at the time of individual's acceptance for military
service, a disease which has led to an individual's
discharge or death will be deemed to have arisen in
service [Rule 14(b)].
29.6. If medical opinion holds that the disease could
not have been detected on medical examination prior
to the acceptance for service and that disease will not
be deemed to have arisen during service, the Medical
Board is required to state the reasons [Rule 14(b)]; and
29.7. It is mandatory for the Medical Board to follow
the guidelines laid down in Chapter II of the Guide
to Medical Officers (Military Pensions), 2002.
43.1. Accordingly, this Court answered the question so framed in
favour of the appellant and held in the facts of that case that no
note of any disease was recorded at the time of the appellant’s
acceptance for military service. In the absence of any note in
the service record at the time of acceptance of joining of the
appellant, it was incumbent on the part of the Medical Board to
call for records and look into the same before opining that the
disease could not have been detected on medical examination
prior to the acceptance for military service.
44. This Court in Sukhvinder Singh Vs. Union of India,5 noticed that
the relevant Rules and Regulations did not set out the medical
5 (2014) 14 SCC 364
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1567
Bijender Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
parameters to be considered by the Invaliding Medical Boards
justifying or requiring serviceman/officer to be removed from service.
This feature renders the decisions taken by such Boards pregnable
to assaults on the grounds of capriciousness or arbitrariness. This is
especially so where the extent of disability is below 20%. Highlighting
the paradox, this Court posed the following question:
Can the authorities be permitted to portray that whilst a
person has so minor a disability as to disentitle him for
compensation, yet suffers from a disability that is major
or serious enough to snatch away his employment?
44.1. It was in that context, this Court held that any disability not
recorded at the time of recruitment must be presumed to have
been caused subsequently and unless proved to the contrary
to be a consequence of military service. Para 11 reads thus:
11. We are of the persuasion, therefore, that firstly, any
disability not recorded at the time of recruitment must
be presumed to have been caused subsequently and
unless proved to the contrary to be a consequence
of military service. The benefit of doubt is rightly
extended in favour of the member of the armed forces;
any other conclusion would tantamount to granting a
premium to the Recruitment Medical Board for their
own negligence. Secondly, the morale of the armed
forces requires absolute and undiluted protection
and if an injury leads to loss of service without
any recompense, this morale would be severely
undermined. Thirdly, there appear to be no provisions
authorising the discharge or invaliding out of service
where the disability is below twenty per cent and
seems to us to be logically so. Fourthly, wherever a
member of the armed forces is invalided out of service,
it perforce has to be assumed that his disability was
found to be above twenty per cent. Fifthly, as per
the extant Rules/Regulations, a disability leading to
invaliding out of service would attract the grant of
fifty per cent disability pension.
44.2. As can be seen from the above, this Court emphasized
that the morale of the armed forces requires absolute and
1568 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
undiluted protection. If any injury leads to loss of service
without any recompense, this morale would be severely
undermined. Further, this Court noticed that there appeared
to be no provision authorising the discharge or invaliding out
of service where the disability is below 20% which is quite
logical. Therefore, it has been held that where a member of the
armed forces is invalided out of service, it perforce has to be
assumed that his disability was found to be above 20%. Most
important is that this Court after considering the extant Rules
and Regulations has held that a disability leading to invaliding
out of service would attract grant of 50% disability pension.
45. We have already noticed the analysis of Rules 5, 9 and 14 of the
Rules in Rajbir Singh (supra). After adverting to the decision of this
Court in Dharamvir Singh (supra), this Court opined as under:
14. The legal position as stated in Dharamvir Singh
case is, in our opinion, in tune with the Pension
Regulations, the Entitlement Rules and the Guidelines
issued to the Medical Officers. The essence of the
rules, as seen earlier, is that a member of the armed
forces is presumed to be in sound physical and
mental condition at the time of his entry into service
if there is no note or record to the contrary made at
the time of such entry. More importantly, in the event
of his subsequent discharge from service on medical
ground, any deterioration in his health is presumed
to be due to military service. This necessarily implies
that no sooner a member of the force is discharged
on medical ground his entitlement to claim disability
pension will arise unless of course the employer is in
a position to rebut the presumption that the disability
which he suffered was neither attributable to nor
aggravated by military service.
15. From Rule 14(b) of the Entitlement Rules it is
further clear that if the medical opinion were to hold
that the disease suffered by the member of the
armed forces could not have been detected prior to
acceptance for service, the Medical Board must state
the reasons for saying so. Last but not the least is
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1569
Bijender Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
the fact that the provision for payment of disability
pension is a beneficial provision which ought to be
interpreted liberally so as to benefit those who have
been sent home with a disability at times even before
they completed their tenure in the armed forces. There
may indeed be cases, where the disease was wholly
unrelated to military service, but, in order that denial
of disability pension can be justified on that ground,
it must be affirmatively proved that the disease
had nothing to do with such service. The burden to
establish such a disconnect would lie heavily upon the
employer for otherwise the rules raise a presumption
that the deterioration in the health of the member
of the service is on account of military service or
aggravated by it. A soldier cannot be asked to prove
that the disease was contracted by him on account
of military service or was aggravated by the same.
The very fact that he was upon proper physical and
other tests found fit to serve in the army should rise
as indeed the rules do provide for a presumption
that he was disease-free at the time of his entry
into service. That presumption continues till it is
proved by the employer that the disease was neither
attributable to nor aggravated by military service. For
the employer to say so, the least that is required is a
statement of reasons supporting that view. That we
feel is the true essence of the rules which ought to
be kept in view all the time while dealing with cases
of disability pension.
45.1. Thus, this Court held that essence of the Rules is that a
member of the armed forces is presumed to be in sound
physical and mental condition at the time of his entry into the
service if there is no note or record to the contrary made at
the time of such entry. In the event of subsequent discharge
from service on medical ground, any deterioration in health
would be presumed to be due to military service. The burden
would be on the employer to rebut the presumption that the
disability suffered by the member was neither attributable to
nor aggravated by military service. If the Medical Board is of
1570 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the opinion that the disease suffered by the member could
not have been detected at the time of entry into service, the
Medical Board has to give reasons for saying so. This Court
highlighted that the provision for payment of disability pension is
a beneficial one which ought to be interpreted liberally. A soldier
cannot be asked to prove that the disease was contracted by
him on account of military service or was aggravated by the
same. The very fact that upon proper physical and other tests,
the member was found fit to serve in the army would give rise
to a presumption that he was disease free at the time of his
entry into service. For the employer to say that such a disease
was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service,
the least that is required to be done is to furnish reasons for
taking such a view.
46. Referring back to the impugned order dated 26.02.2016, we find that
the Tribunal simply went by the remarks of the Invaliding Medical
Board and Re-Survey Medical Boards to hold that since the disability
of the appellant was less than 20%, he would not be entitled to the
disability element of the disability pension. Tribunal did not examine
the issue as to whether the disability was attributable to or aggravated
by military service. In the instant case neither has it been mentioned
by the Invaliding Medical Board nor by the Re-Survey Medical Boards
that the disease for which the appellant was invalided out of service
could not be detected at the time of entry into military service. As
a matter of fact, the Invaliding Medical Board was quite categorical
that no disability of the appellant existed before entering service. As
would be evident from the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the law
has by now crystalized that if there is no note or report of the Medical
Board at the time of entry into service that the member suffered
from any particular disease, the presumption would be that the
member got afflicted by the said disease because of military service.
Therefore the burden of proving that the disease is not attributable
to or aggravated by military service rest entirely on the employer.
Further, any disease or disability for which a member of the armed
forces is invalided out of service would have to be assumed to be
above 20% and attract grant of 50% disability pension.
47. Thus having regard to the discussions made above, we are of the
considered view that the impugned orders of the Tribunal are wholly
unsustainable in law. That being the position, impugned orders dated
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1571
Bijender Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
22.01.2018 and 26.02.2016 are hereby set aside. Consequently,
respondents are directed to grant the disability element of disability
pension to the appellant at the rate of 50% with effect from 01.01.1996
onwards for life. The arrears shall carry interest at the rate of 6%
per annum till payment. The above directions shall be carried out
by the respondents within three months from today.
48. Both the appeals are accordingly allowed. However, there shall be
no order as to cost.
Result of the case: Appeals allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Invalided from service"Sign in to search